Former prime minister John Howard will be honoured with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour that can be bestowed by a United States president, in recognition of his role in fighting terrorism and standing by the US as an ally.

The former British prime minister, Tony Blair, who provided troops for the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, is also being honoured by US President George Bush, as is Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

"The President is honouring these leaders for their work to improve the lives of their citizens and for their efforts to promote democracy, human rights and peace abroad," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said as she announced the list on Monday Washington time.

"All three leaders have been staunch allies of the United States, particularly in combating terrorism. 

"And their efforts to bring hope and freedom to people around the globe have made their nations, America and the world community a safer and more secure world," she said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/highest-us-civilian-award-for-howard/2009/01/06/1231003973247.html?sssdmh=dm16.354256

Hicks was a political pawn in the Australia-US alliance, during a very fraught period in US political history. It was a time that began with the tragedy of September 11, 2001, but that came to be marked by an administration set on a course of unparalleled expansion of executive power, and the complete denigration of well-established international human rights law.

After five years in Guantanamo Bay, Hicks signed, to secure his release, a pre-trial agreement that stated in part: "I have never been illegally treated by any person or persons while in the custody and control of the United States."

This was despite previously swearing an affidavit in the Rasul v Bush litigation to the contrary. That case contested the right of the US to deprive prisoners at Guantanamo Bay of basic rights to challenge the legality of their detention, known as habeas corpus.

In that affidavit, Hicks declared he was "beaten while blindfolded and handcuffed", had his head rammed into asphalt, was given medication against his will, was deprived of sleep, was offered prostitutes to spy on other detainees, was held in solitary confinement for long periods and was deprived of sunlight for nine months.

The glaring inconsistencies between the plea bargain and the affidavit - which came against a backdrop of volumes of indisputable evidence that detainees were routinely mistreated and in some cases tortured - did not trouble the Bush administration. And they did not bother Hicks's government at home.

It's right to write about Gitmo stay

Gus: the ABC is conducting a stupid survey for which the ABC should be shamed for:

Poll: Should David Hicks be forced to surrender the profits from his memoirs?

It is not for the ABC nor its followers nor its baggers to decide or vote on such an issue. It should be left to the ratbag biased private right-wingnutty networks to indulge in such a stupid "vote".

Hicks suffered at the hand of a Rattus government that was totally out of line. Hicks had not committed a crime until 2006 when he was charged under a new law created specifically to make him guilty. He thus "pleaded" guilty in a sham court case so he could be allowed to be brought back to Australia, and serve a symbolic prison term — so he could get away from that arsehole-on-earth, created by the "good" Americans, called Guantanamo. There Hicks was kept in a cage, kept under artificial light "24/7" to use this ugly amercanism and had been tortured before that.

Basically Hicks is guilty of having done nothing. He did not kill anyone, unlike Bush, Blair and Howard who lied to go to war in Iraq. They have blood on their hand but they use their sociopathic skin to slither through their guilt. They are proud of their crap.

The ABC only valid vote on this issue is: "Should Howard, Blair and Bush be brought to justice in a war criminal court?"